NationStates Jolt Archive

A recent poll conducted by CNN/USA Today/Gallup shows that, for the first time, a majority of American's think the war in Iraq was a mistake. Thursday's results showed 54% of American's felt it was a mistake to send troops into Iraq. 55% also felt that the war has not made the US any safer from terrorisim, contrary to Bush's frequent harping.

To be fair, the poll also stated that both Bush and Kerry were almost tied when it came to who US citizens think would handle Iraq better, with 47% favoring Bush and 46% favoring Kerry. Also, while 60% said they felt Kerry could handle being President, 51% said they trust Bush more in that role. In terms of likely voters, Bush also maintained a single point lead, with 49% favoring him over 48% favoring Kerry. Nader seems to be drawing votes from both sides because when he was added into the mix, the numbers read 48% Bush, 47% Kerry and 3% Nader. Those polled also had a higher favorable rating for Kerry, 58% for Kerry compared to 53% for Bush. When asked about the economy, Kerry trounces Bush, with 53% feeling Kerry would handle the economy better than Bush, with just 40%. This could be pivitol, as 41% of those polled said the economy was the most important issue the President must address.

Interesting numbers all the way around.

I love how people say the economy is the most important issue for the President to address when his power over it is so limitted. It's a sad statement about the understanding of the workings of our society that the average citizen has, but it's amusing in a cynical sort of way.

I love how people say the economy is the most important issue for the President to address when his power over it is so limitted. It's a sad statement about the understanding of the workings of our society that the average citizen has, but it's amusing in a cynical sort of way.

Ahhh but he does have the power to affect things.

If the shrub got up and said the economy is just awful! You think the stock market would not tank?

His father failed to listen to the old mantra "It's the economy stupid!"

It appears he might as well.

He will get a boost if people recover what they lost. A computer engineer working at starbucks is not exactly going to say "he is a hell of a president!"

The repubs say the economy is great!
The demos say it is bad!

Go figure! :roll:

I love how people say the economy is the most important issue for the President to address when his power over it is so limitted. It's a sad statement about the understanding of the workings of our society that the average citizen has, but it's amusing in a cynical sort of way.

Shoot! All this time I thought Bush was personally responsible for creating 1,000,000 jobs over the last 4 months.

I love how people say the economy is the most important issue for the President to address when his power over it is so limitted. It's a sad statement about the understanding of the workings of our society that the average citizen has, but it's amusing in a cynical sort of way.

Shoot! All this time I thought Bush was personally responsible for creating 1,000,000 jobs over the last 4 months.

Cool only 1.3 million to go. Or was it 1.9?

Those are interesting numbers. Looks like overall good news for the democrats since they had to fight back up from 2000. Personally I want to see Kerry win, but that's just cause I'm liberal. For the economy, its all how a pres acts to make it look like its being handled. That what the public wants, the good impression that the economy is being handled.

The president has a lot to do with the economy.

For example, the president's tax cut or hikes affect how much money anyone still have to spend. Also, the government is the single biggest employer and the president can decides to create or destroy whole programs that will create or destroy jobs.

As such, Bush's record on economy is deplorable.

The president has a lot to do with the economy.

For example, the president's tax cut or hikes affect how much money anyone still have to spend. Also, the government is the single biggest employer and the president can decides to create or destroy whole programs that will create or destroy jobs.

As such, Bush's record on economy is deplorable.

Tax cuts increase the GDP by the amount of the cut. Spending increases increase GDP by the amount of the increase time the GDP multiplier (I'm not sure what it is right now, but it's a few). Interestingly enough, Bush did basically the right thing when the economy was going down, he lowered taxes and increased spending to counteract the downturn in GDP. On the other hand, the President is not the only input in this equation. Congress and the Federal Reserve play a large role in the setting of economic policy. The President doesn't just create a budget and spend money, it has to be approved by Congress, and it doesn't get approved without heavy editting and particularly adding by Congress.

The President is a lot like a head coach on the economy--he maps out the broad strategy but lacks the power to implement it. He counts on his players (the Congress) to implement it, and if the economy does well, takes too much credit and if it tanks, takes too much blame. And if it tanks for too long a period, he gets fired and we bring in a new coach.

But the important thing to remember in this analogy is that he is responsible for the system in place, especially since we're talking about Bush, because his party has control of both houses of Congress, and thus his plan can theoretically be implemented in its entirety, unlike Presidents who have had to work with a divided Congress.

The President is a lot like a head coach on the economy--he maps out the broad strategy but lacks the power to implement it. He counts on his players (the Congress) to implement it, and if the economy does well, takes too much credit and if it tanks, takes too much blame. And if it tanks for too long a period, he gets fired and we bring in a new coach.

But the important thing to remember in this analogy is that he is responsible for the system in place, especially since we're talking about Bush, because his party has control of both houses of Congress, and thus his plan can theoretically be implemented in its entirety, unlike Presidents who have had to work with a divided Congress.

I personally feel Kerry, Bush,, etc. are not going to do us any good. What they all completely seem to miss out is education. It's always either:

"my plan will rape the terrorists, increase the uberly overfunded welfare program, and increase welfare. Oh yes, the economy is going to be fixed. Almost forgot, no gay rights. Democrats go to hell! Mwuhahah!!"

"my plan will get us out of Iraq, increase welfare, increase healthcare, and fix the economy. Oh yeah, we want gay rights. BTW, Bush looks like a chimp and is a moron! Republicans go to hell! Mwuhahahha!"

It's never:

"my plan is to shift some of the uberly overfunded welfare budget to education, increase healthcare, and fix the economy. Oh, and gay rights? We'll let states decide. Republicans and Democrats go to hell! Mwuhahaha!"

this has been a rant

Does that mean both polls cancel out as if they never happened? :P

I love how people say the economy is the most important issue for the President to address when his power over it is so limitted. It's a sad statement about the understanding of the workings of our society that the average citizen has, but it's amusing in a cynical sort of way.

Shoot! All this time I thought Bush was personally responsible for creating 1,000,000 jobs over the last 4 months.

Cool only 1.3 million to go. Or was it 1.9?

8.2 for full employment.

Have we ever even had full employment before?

Have we ever even had full employment before?If I recall correctly, economists call a full employment economy somewhere between 3 and 4% unemployment. We hit 3.9% briefly during Clinton's second term.

Doesn't make sense to me, full employment with not everyone employed. I suppose it has to do with the number of jobs available.

I'm going to say this once and only once.

Polls don't matter right now. All poll numbers are determined by whom you call and who you talk too. That will decide your polling

All polls are tossed out the window when election day rolls around. The only poll that matters on election day is when the votes are tallied and the electoral votes are counted. That will decide the winner.

Opinion stated that Bush will win and the other is saying that Bush will win as well just not by an overwhelming number!

I'm not trusting either poll! I'll wait for election day to come around to see what happens.

I think--and someone correct me if I'm wrong because I'm certainly no economist--that it has to do with the idea that there's a certain percentage of the population that's just unemployable, and that there's a point at which the job market can become too tight, leading to spiraling wage and price inflation.

It's called the natural rate of unemployment and it's caused by people moving, going back to school, maternity leave, etc.

Again The Black Forest is forgetting all the jobs lost due to the panic (uneccessary in my opinion) after 9/11.

In addition, with regard to computer engineers working at starbucks now. Maybe there is not such a high demand for computer engineers in the marketplace? I remember in the 90's how EVERYONE was into computer science. There may just be too many. In places like socialist Spain, which I've visited on numerous occasions there are plenty of doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. working in hotels as bell boys and at restaurants as waiters. See, due to that socialist system, many people, if not the majority are afforded the opportunity for an education. As a result, most go to college and graduate; however, when they join the workforce, they find there are not enough jobs for them. Too many educated people, not enough consumers.

And if you are referring to the lack or loss of jobs of the computer type in the US due to the dot com bubble being burst. Well good, there were, and still are way too many dot com companies that are being traded at way more than they're assets are worth. It is like Google, a great search engine, that is worth billions for a database and search engine. I mean, where are the profits? Where will the profits required to sustain a multibillion dollar portfollio come from when all is said and done? This is exactly what caused the dot com bust a few years back. This will happen again. For example, "your friend" invests in a dot com thinking it's a good investment, and is probably right. This friend makes a lot of return on his investment; but his friend would also like a piece of his pie, so he invests also and so on and so fourth, until a stock gets incredibly overpriced and the light is shown on the "books." The stock tanks, and then is incredibly under-priced (like Enron...although not a dot com stock...tons of physical assets/holdings but a problem...maybe serious with accounting) go figure!

Tax cuts increase the GDP by the amount of the cut. Spending increases increase GDP by the amount of the increase time the GDP multiplier (I'm not sure what it is right now, but it's a few). Interestingly enough, Bush did basically the right thing when the economy was going down, he lowered taxes and increased spending to counteract the downturn in GDP. On the other hand, the President is not the only input in this equation. Congress and the Federal Reserve play a large role in the setting of economic policy. The President doesn't just create a budget and spend money, it has to be approved by Congress, and it doesn't get approved without heavy editting and particularly adding by Congress.

See, this is where you're making a mistake. You're trying to tell the truth here maybe even educate the masses but they'll still spout off the same crap because they've been conditioned to parrot the lines they're being fed.

The President is a lot like a head coach on the economy--he maps out the broad strategy but lacks the power to implement it. He counts on his players (the Congress) to implement it, and if the economy does well, takes too much credit and if it tanks, takes too much blame. And if it tanks for too long a period, he gets fired and we bring in a new coach.

But the important thing to remember in this analogy is that he is responsible for the system in place, especially since we're talking about Bush, because his party has control of both houses of Congress, and thus his plan can theoretically be implemented in its entirety, unlike Presidents who have had to work with a divided Congress.

Oh no, not you too!

I think--and someone correct me if I'm wrong because I'm certainly no economist--that it has to do with the idea that there's a certain percentage of the population that's just unemployable, and that there's a point at which the job market can become too tight, leading to spiraling wage and price inflation.

That number is generally regarded as 5.5% and I think that they derive it from an historical look at unemployment numbers. Disclaimer: I'm no economist either but I am working toward majoring in the social science as we converse.

...because his party has control of both houses of Congress, and thus his plan can theoretically be implemented in its entirety, unlike Presidents who have had to work with a divided Congress.

Although technically the Republicans have the majority in the US Senate, I'd argue with you tooth and nail that they do not control the senate at all. But they will in January! Bush might not be in the WH come then but the house and the senate will be firmly Republican by then. I might enjoy the bugetary gridlock that would come with that scenario but having a flip flopper, weakling at America's helm might leave a lasting impression for those who hate us (which they did prior to Bush as well).

On a separate but related note, does anyone recall the 444 day Iranian Hostage Crisis, what type (agressive or passive) of president was in office during these 444 days and what historical event led to their release. Does anyone have the answer(s)?

...because his party has control of both houses of Congress, and thus his plan can theoretically be implemented in its entirety, unlike Presidents who have had to work with a divided Congress.

Although technically the Republicans have the majority in the US Senate, I'd argue with you tooth and nail that they do not control the senate at all. But they will in January! Bush might not be in the WH come then but the house and the senate will be firmly Republican by then. I might enjoy the bugetary gridlock that would come with that scenario but having a flip flopper, weakling at America's helm might leave a lasting impression for those who hate us (which they did prior to Bush as well).

On a separate but related note, does anyone recall the 444 day Iranian Hostage Crisis, what type (agressive or passive) of president was in office during these 444 days and what historical event led to their release. Does anyone have the answer(s)?

Unless of course the Republicans get the seats necessary to control 60% of the Senate then there will be no gridlock!

I love how people say the economy is the most important issue for the President to address when his power over it is so limitted. It's a sad statement about the understanding of the workings of our society that the average citizen has, but it's amusing in a cynical sort of way.

Foriegn policy effects the market.

...because his party has control of both houses of Congress, and thus his plan can theoretically be implemented in its entirety, unlike Presidents who have had to work with a divided Congress.

Although technically the Republicans have the majority in the US Senate, I'd argue with you tooth and nail that they do not control the senate at all. But they will in January! Bush might not be in the WH come then but the house and the senate will be firmly Republican by then. I might enjoy the bugetary gridlock that would come with that scenario but having a flip flopper, weakling at America's helm might leave a lasting impression for those who hate us (which they did prior to Bush as well).

On a separate but related note, does anyone recall the 444 day Iranian Hostage Crisis, what type (agressive or passive) of president was in office during these 444 days and what historical event led to their release. Does anyone have the answer(s)?When it comes to budgetary matters, the Republicans truly control the Congress because regardeless of what Democrats are able to filibuster or force onto spending bills in the Senate, once the bills go to conference committee, anything the Republican leadership doesn't like gets stripped out. It's happened numerous times already, even to issues that passed by huge bipartisan margins in both the House and Senate.

And by the way, a little digging into the Iran hostage crisis reveals an October surprise by George H. W. Bush's old friends from CIA--much like the one Kissinger pulled for Nixon in 1968. I'm not saying it cost Carter re-election--Reagan would have likely won regardless--but don't try to act like Reagan made the release happen. If anything, his people kept it from happening earlier than it did and set the stage for what would become the Iran-Contra scandal.